MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230203031742.1730761-1-imagedong@tencent.com>
 <20230203031742.1730761-3-imagedong@tencent.com> <CAEf4BzYh90NyyYvfTT=M=-KLspydMX4PZK8jCwNDydAP=kFgYw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzYh90NyyYvfTT=M=-KLspydMX4PZK8jCwNDydAP=kFgYw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Feb 2023 10:39:07 +0800
Message-ID: <CADxym3a6_wBHW_c_ZYtZ5QXbbunhKxau6k-fn4TNrn+6qzW6fw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: add test for legacy/perf
 kprobe/uprobe attach mode
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc:     alan.maguire@oracle.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
        andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org,
        yhs@fb.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
        sdf@google.com, haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 4:05 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 7:18 PM <menglong8.dong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
> >
> > Add the testing for kprobe/uprobe attaching in legacy and perf mode.
> > And the testing passed:
> >
> > ./test_progs -t attach_probe
> > $5       attach_probe:OK
> > Summary: 1/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
> > ---
>
> Do you mind refactoring attach_probe test into multiple subtests,
> where each subtest will only test one of the attach mode and type. The
> reason is that libbpf CI runs tests with latest selftests and libbpf
> against old kernels (4.9 and 5.5, currently). Due to attach_probe
> testing all these uprobe/kprobe attach modes with extra features (like
> cookie, ref count, etc), we had to disable attach_probe test in libbpf
> CI on old kernels.
>
> If we can split each individual uprobe/kprobe mode, that will give us
> flexibility to selectively allowlist those tests that don't force
> libbpf to use newer features (like cookies, LINK or PERF mode, etc).
>
> It would be a great improvement and highly appreciated! If you don't
> mind doing this, let's do the split of existing use cases into subtest
> in a separate patch, and then add PERF/LEGACY/LINK mode tests on top
> of that patch.
>

Of course, with pleasure. For the existing use cases, we split it into
subtests, such as:

  kprobe/kretprobe auto attach
  kprobe/kretprobe manual attach
  uprobe/uretprobe ref_ctr test
  uprobe/uretprobe auto attach
  sleepable kprobe/uprobe
  ......

Am I right?

Thanks!
Dongmeng Long

>
> >  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c   | 61 ++++++++++++++++++-
> >  .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_attach_probe.c   | 32 ++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
>
> [...]